<div dir="ltr">I still question the interpretation of the rules here. This is from the FAI sporting code:<div><br></div><div>Each judge gives a mark for each manoeuvre during a flight. Assuming the highest mark 10 at the
start of each manoeuvre, every <b>defect</b> is subject to <b>downgrade</b> of the mark in whole numbers (<b>or in
half numbers for slight defects, but in sum resulting in up-rounded whole numbers</b>). A high score
should remain only if no substantial, severe or multiple defects are found.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The original methodology I had implemented in the electronic scribe resulted in a cumulative downgrade of 1.5 points being up-rounded to 2 points of DEFECT, resulting in a final score of 8, effectively rounding the final score DOWN. We asked for a clarification from Michael Ramel but I'm not sure he understood the clarification we were asking for! The current implementation in both MasterScoring and the electronic scribe is that 1.5 is deducted from the final score (8.5) which is then up-rounded to 9. What I do not like about that is it means that a maneuver with a total of one minor defect (for a 0.5 deduction) gets a perfect 10 instead of an imperfect 9.</div><div><br></div><div>Peter+</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>"</i><i><span style="font-size:9.5pt">No particular
reason was given for the rounding up... They preferred it versus rounding down.</span>"</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Well that sounds like a scientific explanation. Since it makes
no reference to how floating point numbers and quantization errors actually
work, we’ll have to accept it as fact. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1f497d">J</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">John Pavlick<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Cell: <a href="tel:203-417-4971" value="+12034174971" target="_blank">203-417-4971</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><img width="91" height="39" src="cid:image001.png@01D1EC12.311C26B0" alt="idslogo2"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Impact","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Integrated Development Services</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> NSRCA-discussion
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott
Smith via NSRCA-discussion<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 01, 2016 3:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Stuart Chale; General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI 1/2 points<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I asked that same question and was told:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>"</i><i><span style="font-size:9.5pt">No particular
reason was given for the rounding up... They preferred it versus rounding down.</span>"</i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Chale via
NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some ideas and changes are just plain stupid! There I
said it :)<br>
<br>
I have always hated the fact that some judging criteria and downgrades<br>
were different in FAI and AMA. Makes judging which is a tough job to do<br>
right even tougher. You have to know 2 different sets of rules and in<br>
the long run only lowers the accuracy of judging, most likely more so<br>
for the FAI fliers. But that is another can of worms.<br>
<br>
I thought that allowing 1/2 points in FAI sounded like a good idea, we<br>
are used to it in the rest of the classes. And since the FAI pilots are<br>
in most part the better fliers they are more likely to make the 1/2<br>
point errors as compared to the greater inaccuracies usually seen in the<br>
lower classes.<br>
<br>
But wait an 8.5 becomes a 9, and a 9 is still a 9 ??????<br>
<br>
So just to prove how silly this idea can be I used Scott's scoring<br>
program and ran a fictitious contest with 2 flyers and 2 rounds. I used<br>
a couple of friends as contestants so to not offend anyone. I also had<br>
to use the masters sequence as an example, as the program automatically<br>
rounds up FAI scores.<br>
<br>
Hopefully the PDF files are attached.<br>
<br>
Each flyer received identical scores in each of their 2 flights. AR<br>
received all 7.5's except one maneuver which was an 8.5, and DL all 8's<br>
. In round 1 scores were not rounded up and in round 2 the scores were<br>
rounded up as they would automatically be done in FAI.<br>
<br>
Look at the files for AR round 1 and DL round 1. It would seem
pretty<br>
obvious who should win that round and without rounding up AR gets a<br>
947.75 to DL's 1000.<br>
<br>
Note that every maneuver but one was judged higher for DL.<br>
<br>
Now look at AR round 2 and DL round 2 rounded up. The same exact judges<br>
scores with only 1 maneuver scored higher for AR, but due to the<br>
rounding up AR wins the round 1000 to 989.86.<br>
<br>
Now this is the extreme and unlikely to actually happen in a contest to<br>
this extent but just the fact that it works this way makes the whole<br>
idea of rounding up ridiculous.<br>
<br>
Is there really an argument that this is a good thing?<br>
<br>
Stuart C.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training</div><div>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark</div><div>Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X</div><div>Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)</div><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg" width="200" height="154"><img src="https://googledrive.com/host/0B4LOPeyGAgOJUVJmU1dJMVl6WWc/AcademyModelAeronauticsLogo.png" width="200" height="136"><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>